netdev - Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: Readd zd_addr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070210073606.GA12495@p15091797.pureserver.info>
Date:	Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:36:06 +0100
From:	Ulrich Kunitz <kune@...ne-taler.de>
To:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
Cc:	Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>, linville@...driver.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	rpjday@...dspring.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: Readd zd_addr_t cast

On 07-02-10 07:02 Michael Buesch wrote:

> On Saturday 10 February 2007 02:27, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > Robert P.J. Day's recent commit ("getting rid of all casts of k[cmz]alloc()
> > calls") introduced a sparse warning for zd1211rw, related to our type-checking
> > of addresses.
> > 
> > 	zd_chip.c:116:15: warning: implicit cast to nocast type
> > 
> > This patch readds the type cast, it is correct.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>
> > 
> > Index: linux/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_chip.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_chip.c
> > +++ linux/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_chip.c
> > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ int zd_ioread32v_locked(struct zd_chip *
> >  
> >  	/* Allocate a single memory block for values and addresses. */
> >  	count16 = 2*count;
> > -	a16 = kmalloc(count16 * (sizeof(zd_addr_t) + sizeof(u16)),
> > +	a16 = (zd_addr_t *) kmalloc(count16 * (sizeof(zd_addr_t) + sizeof(u16)),
> >  		                   GFP_NOFS);
> 
> Unrelated, but I am wondering since quite some time why you pass GFP_NOFS here.
> Any special reason? I think in general there is no good reason for code outside
> of the VFS to use this flag.
> IMHO you should pass either GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_KERNEL.

Michael,

you are right. The theory has been to prevent the NFS operations
while being in the kernel. But no driver in drivers/net is using
it. I will exchange it by GFP_KERNEL, this code is protected by a
mutex and is not atomic.

Ciao,

Uli

-- 
Uli Kunitz
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html